It is not quite so cut and dry - just as assuming every professor at Stanford is a superior scholar or teacher to every professor at Santa Clara. There are some professors who might prefer teaching at Santa Clara or even a junior college as opposed to Stanford for any variety of reasons.

Sometimes scheduling and class availablity plays a part in a student's choice to take courses at a different school. When I was a student I took my major with a teacher off campus because he had skills and presented opportunies that far surpassed what was available from any of the professors on campus.

Many times students need courses to fulfil the requirements of their major even if such courses will have little or no bearing on their future professional careers.
In certain cases is it so bad to work hardest on what will be more important to your future and maybe slack off a little on a course that although required may not be important in the future?

There are many possibilties and situations. Giving the benefit of the doubt here - students accepted at Stanford have a proven record of success in high school. If they choose to study off campus for whatever reason I don't necessarily see it as them throwing away opportunity or as a waste.

Yes, I totally agree it's wrong to assume that every professor at higher-rated school is a superior scholar or teacher to every professor at a lower-ranked school.

Here I would refrain from talking about Stanford or Santa Clara specifically because I did not attend either of them or have friends in them.

But some research universities put such a great emphasis on research productivity that teaching skills may not matter more than research competence in the selection process of the candidates of professors (they'd say both are equally important though) and that professors in research universities may not be pressured to invest as much effort in teaching as those in teaching colleges.

On the other hand, teachers may tailor the level of teaching to the level of understanding of their average students. Class discussions also may be more exciting at competitive schools.

Basically, I think it good that the university allows flexibility in exchanging credits across schools. It could create a loop hole that we discussed, but from a broader perspective, it creates more opportunities for the students to study in different places in the world and more autonomous selection as you mentioned. Sometimes, you may not be able to get the kind of learning opportunity in your university if you have to limit your choices specifically to your university.

Sorry I am getting off the topic. I wish Rachael good luck with her studies.

Despite the fact that continuing with college was Alissa's priority, it is indeed true that there's more of an "expiration date" on skating abilities than there is on college. Alissa was probably just stating that as a fact. You can be a thirty-year-old scholar, or even a forty-year-old one, but it's harder to be a top competitive skater with all your jumps at a later age, so if you have to choose one pursuit at a time, it makes sense to put skating first chronologically. Alissa chose to try both, but she seems to be a polite sort, and she might be reluctant to imply criticism of Rachael's choice. So her comment makes sense to me.

i'm not really worried about Rachael in terms of whether she'll return to academics. She seems to be interested in that side of things, and when I see how Paul Wylie and Michelle Kwan turned out, I know that a committed scholar will eventually get the degrees completed.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I haven't read the whole thread.

As much as I do reaize that a competitive skaters career has a time limit, I also think that experiencing college to its fullest is a once in a l ifetime opportunity too. It's very different going into the dorms as an 18 yr old freshman vs a 22 yr old freshman. The mindset between the 2 ages is very different.

Couldn't Rachel not compete this year but still skate/train while having a full freshman college experience? Then after the end of freshman year, she could 'hold' college and return to competition.

I'd feel differently if the Olympics was within the next 2-3 yrs, but timing wise, she could have her freshman college experience with people of the same age and still get back into skating competitively. Unlike Michele Kwan, Rachel likely still wants a medal at World's and an Olympic medal to get her back into competitive mode. The 1 yr time off from competition might also help stave off injury, too. Very few skaters [who also want college] have this timing with the Olympic cycle.

Rachael has mentioned deferring for just ONE year. I don't see that much difference between an 18-year-old freshman and a 19-year-old one. Rachael will have her "full freshman college experience", just a year later than some other freshmen.

Rachael has mentioned deferring for just ONE year. I don't see that much difference between an 18-year-old freshman and a 19-year-old one. Rachael will have her "full freshman college experience", just a year later than some other freshmen.

ITA. Rachael is also young for her grade at school, born late July '92, so even after deferring a year she will still be around the same age as many freshmen who didn't defer a year, plus Rachael also looks very young, I don't think putting off college 1 year will be a big issue for her.

? her figure is petite. she does not have very muscular thighs but every body is different in skating and many body types have done well. although short people have the advantage. that's why it is refreshing to seea tall guy like Lysacek do the jumps and have long lean lines. Not since Cousins have we seen such a tall guy in the sport.

? her figure is petite. she does not have very muscular thighs but every body is different in skating and many body types have done well. although short people have the advantage. that's why it is refreshing to seea tall guy like Lysacek do the jumps and have long lean lines. Not since Cousins have we seen such a tall guy in the sport.

What about girls? Have we ever had a very tall women's world or olympic champion (and when i say tall, Shizuka, Sarah, Yuna, Mao don't count because they are all 5'4" or 5'5" and while that may be tall for skating or for certain countries, for us normal folks it's average)

Lisa Marie Allen was 5'10" or taller. She was able to land as many triples as everyone else in her day and IMHO was gypped out of a national title AND a couple international medals.

Oh wow, that's really tall! For men, 6'2" is 95th percentile and for ladies 95th percentile is 5'9", looking at things that way, it's truly amazing Evan is our Olympic champion, he is very, very tall indeed. You often hear about how Phanuef and Kostner are so tall, but at 5'6"-5'7", they aren't nearly as tall for a woman as Lysacek is for a man. I know height does not seem to be as big of an issue for men, but when small men like Oda and Takahashi (both about 5'5" and 120-130 pounds) are doing so well in the sport, you have to wonder. Chan, Kozuka, Brezina, Rippon are all fairly small as well, Evan looks like a giant in comparison.